• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I doubt the Trump Administration will charge H. Clinton for anything re: "emailgate"

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is a political strategy thread:

The Trump DoJ has had two years to sift through the information regarding H. Clinton's "emailgate" matter and hasn't indicted her. One must, given all the acrimony and argy-bargy over the criminality of her "emailgate-related" actions, why. The reasons why are simple: (1) there's no legal "there" there and (2) more importantly to Trump and Republican politically savvy strategists, it's politically unwise and fruitless to do so.

Despite Trump and Trumpkins adamantine insistence that Hillary Clinton committed culpable criminal acts and should thus be charged, prosecuted, found guilty, and, thus, locked-up, I doubt whatever the Admin. does will go so far as a trial. I think that because the political value of the recriminations against Hillary disappear if Clinton prevails at trial.

The American public is, sadly yet generally, of the mind that if one is under investigation, one did indeed do something wrong. Prosecutors and investigators know that's not so, but that they do isn't the point, for most Americans aren't prosecutors, attorneys and/or professional criminal investigators.

Accordingly, if "emailgate" were, by the Trump Administration, brought to trial and Clinton is found not-guilty, bye-bye goes the legitimacy of a central "leg" of Trump and Trumpkins' argument against Clinton. Politically speaking, far more efficacious is it to leave the matter "unresolved" and in the semi-limbo state in which it now sits, for in that status, the trope serves as a rallying cry and it diminishes the viability of a third H. Clinton run for the WH.


ETA:
Why did I create this thread?
  • Because I've noticed rumblings about Hillary running yet again. So long as the "emailgate" matter remains 'unresolved," it can be used against her. Once it's resolved, it cannot. And, as we know, a Republican FBI Director decided the matter lacked prosecutorial merit because the investigation could find no cogent/sound evidence supporting the mens rea assertion prosecutors would have to probatively show at trial.
 
Last edited:

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,360
Reaction score
29,727
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is a political strategy thread:

The Trump DoJ has had two years to sift through the information regarding H. Clinton's "emailgate" matter and hasn't indicted her. One must, given all the acrimony and argy-bargy over the criminality of her "emailgate-related" actions, why. The reasons why are simple: (1) there's no legal "there" there and (2) more importantly to Trump and Republican politically savvy strategists, it's politically unwise and fruitless to do so.

Despite Trump and Trumpkins adamantine insistence that Hillary Clinton committed culpable criminal acts and should thus be charged, prosecuted, found guilty, and, thus, locked-up, I doubt whatever the Admin. does will go so far as a trial. I think that because the political value of the recriminations against Hillary disappear if Clinton prevails at trial.

The American public is, sadly yet generally, of the mind that if one is under investigation, one did indeed do something wrong. Prosecutors and investigators know that's not so, but that they do isn't the point, for most Americans aren't prosecutors, attorneys and/or professional criminal investigators.

Accordingly, if "emailgate" were, by the Trump Administration, brought to trial and Clinton is found not-guilty, bye-bye goes the legitimacy of a central "leg" of Trump and Trumpkins' argument against Clinton. Politically speaking, far more efficacious is it to leave the matter "unresolved" and in the semi-limbo state in which it now sits, for in that status, the trope serves as a rallying cry and it diminishes the viability of a third H. Clinton run for the WH.


ETA:
Why did I create this thread? Because I've noticed rumblings about Hillary running yet again. So long as the "emailgate" matter remains 'unresolved," it can be used against her. Once it's resolved, it cannot. And, as we know, a Republican FBI Director decided the matter lacked prosecutorial merit because the investigation could find no cogent/sound evidence supporting the mens rea assertion prosecutors would have to probatively show at trial.

Oh, it would be nice if she faced the consequences for her illegal and corrupt actions, but I really don't care if she does or not. I'm content to let her and her husband have what time they have left to live in relative obscurity. She should do a lot of walking to extend that time as much as possible.

If the Trump DOJ really wanted to deal with corrupt government officials, I'd rather they direct their efforts toward the actions of the entire corrupt Obama administration. That's way more serious than Hillary's stuff.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
67,103
Reaction score
34,162
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is a political strategy thread:

The Trump DoJ has had two years to sift through the information regarding H. Clinton's "emailgate" matter and hasn't indicted her. One must, given all the acrimony and argy-bargy over the criminality of her "emailgate-related" actions, why. The reasons why are simple: (1) there's no legal "there" there and (2) more importantly to Trump and Republican politically savvy strategists, it's politically unwise and fruitless to do so.

Despite Trump and Trumpkins adamantine insistence that Hillary Clinton committed culpable criminal acts and should thus be charged, prosecuted, found guilty, and, thus, locked-up, I doubt whatever the Admin. does will go so far as a trial. I think that because the political value of the recriminations against Hillary disappear if Clinton prevails at trial.

The American public is, sadly yet generally, of the mind that if one is under investigation, one did indeed do something wrong. Prosecutors and investigators know that's not so, but that they do isn't the point, for most Americans aren't prosecutors, attorneys and/or professional criminal investigators.

Accordingly, if "emailgate" were, by the Trump Administration, brought to trial and Clinton is found not-guilty, bye-bye goes the legitimacy of a central "leg" of Trump and Trumpkins' argument against Clinton. Politically speaking, far more efficacious is it to leave the matter "unresolved" and in the semi-limbo state in which it now sits, for in that status, the trope serves as a rallying cry and it diminishes the viability of a third H. Clinton run for the WH.


ETA:
Why did I create this thread?
  • Because I've noticed rumblings about Hillary running yet again. So long as the "emailgate" matter remains 'unresolved," it can be used against her. Once it's resolved, it cannot. And, as we know, a Republican FBI Director decided the matter lacked prosecutorial merit because the investigation could find no cogent/sound evidence supporting the mens rea assertion prosecutors would have to probatively show at trial.

I could see Trump thinking this way. Also likely is not wishing to establish too strong a precedent that laws broken while serving in a high position in the Executive should be prosecuted by the following administration.
 

Amelia

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
9,768
Reaction score
7,599
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
(A) Of course they won't indict her.

(B) If resolution of emailgate is all that is standing between her and running again, then heaven help the Democratic party and the nation.


You think her third run could be viable? Seriously? That's very sad.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
45,484
Reaction score
29,496
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Perhaps not on emailgate, but, then again . . . .
In a stunning display, a man who is a recognized government watchdog and had given Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz documents showing federal officials ignored the relationship among Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Rosatom, the Russian company that purchased Uranium One, had his home raided by the FBI, despite the fact that his status was protected by law.
As Richard Pollock of The Daily Caller reports, “The delivered documents also show that then-FBI Director Robert Mueller failed to investigate allegations of criminal misconduct pertaining to Rosatom and to other Russian government entities attached to Uranium One, the document reviewed by TheDCNF alleges.”
Report: Whistleblower Who Found Information Showing Feds Ignored Hillary's Dealings With Russians Has Home Raided By FBI

it might be that the Russian collusion that been searched for, for some 2 years now, is finally starting to come to light?
 
Top Bottom